Synergy Promenade Sdn. Bhd v 1. ) the New Straits Times Press (Malaysia) Berhad (WA-23CY-31-06/2018)

The Court struck out the Plaintiff’s claim for defamation against the Defendants under Order 18 Rule 19 of the Rules for the absence of any cause of action.

Order 18 Rule 19 of the Rules states as follows:

Striking out pleadings and endorsements (O. 18 r. 19)

The Court may at any stage of the proceedings order to be struck out or amended any pleading or the endorsement, of any writ in the action, or anything in any pleading or in the endorsement, on the ground that-

it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence, as the case may be;

No evidence shall be admissible on an application under subparagraph (1)(a). Brief facts

The Plaintiffs had filed this claim for defamation against the Defendants for publishing a number of articles for the transfer of lands belonging to FELDA to the Plaintiffs at a deflated price under suspicious circumstances.

All the articles were written by the 2nd Defendant and published by the 1st Defendant as follows: i) The 1st article was published on 21/12/2017 in the Berita Harian newspaper belonging to the 1st Defendant as reported by the 2nd Defendant. ii) No date is mentioned for the 2nd article also written by the 2nd Defendant entitled “JPM Bagi Tempoh Sebulan Nilai Dokumen”. iii) The 3rd article was published by the 1st Defendant on 22/12/2017 also written by the 2nd Defendant entitled “Agensi Ambil Apa Sahaja Tindakan Dapat Semula Tanah Bernilai 270 juta”. iv) The 4th article written on 23/12/2017 written by the 2nd Defendant was entitled “Nilai Tanah RM1 B harga Jual 270J” v) The 5th article was published on 25/12/2017 entitled “FELDA Berang Berita Palsu Isu Tanah Jalan Semarak” vi) The 6th article was written on 9/2/2018 entitled “Audit Forensic Senarai Nama Lembaga Pengarah FELDA, FIC”

The Plaintiffs contend that this series of articles had tarnished the reputation of the Plaintiffs and subjected them to odium and contempt as well as suspicion in connection with the project undertaken by the Plaintiffs on behalf of FELDA. The law on defamation

What amounts to defamatory statement is expounded in many case. The following case make clear that the statement must be read as a whole and from the eyes of a reasonable man.

In Tun Datuk Patinggi Haji Abdul Rahman Ya'kub v. Bre Sdn Bhd [1995] CLJU 304; [1996] 1 MLJ 393: Further, the words complained of must be considered as a whole, bearing in mind, inter alia, the context in which they were used (see Gatley on Libel and Slander (8th Ed) para 102 at p 102 and Institute of Commercial Management United Kingdom v. New Straits Times Press (Malaysia) Bhd [1993] 2 CLJ 365; [1993] 2 MLJ 408). In the case of Capital and Counties Bank v. Henty (1882) 7 App Cas 741 at p 745 Lord Selborne LC said this: The test according to the authorities is whether, under the circumstances in which the writing was published, a reasonable man to whom the publication was made would be likely to understand it in a libellous sense.

The Federal Court in Dato' Sri Dr Mohamad Salleh bin Ismail & Anor v. Nurul Izzah bt Anwar & Anor [2021] 4 CLJ 327; [2021] 2 MLJ 577 FC reiterated the aforesaid proposition in the following manner: In our respectful view, this was not really a bane and antidote situation. It was rather a case of whether upon a consideration of the entire statement, and not just a minor part, there were matters which were defamatory of the appellants. This was a question of fact to be determined and assessed by the standard of the ordinary, reasonable and fair-minded reader or viewer. In short, the issue really is: how would such a reader or viewer assess the statement. Cause of action

Taking guidance from the above authorities it is imperative to consider all the 6 articles as mentioned by the Plaintiffs in the Statement of Claim, as a whole and what is conveyed in the articles using the reasonable man test.

If the series of articles are considered as a whole what is being conveyed in the Court’s view, is the mismanagement and impropriety on the part of FELDA and its subsidiaries including its Chairman in transferring a valuable piece of land at a deflated price.

No way is it attributed in the article that the Plaintiffs are in any way involved in any impropriety in acquiring the land and on the contrary the articles vindicate the Plaintiffs in the sense that it is stated in the articles that the Plaintiffs have acted in accordance with the Power of Attorney given to them to develop the land. On the giving of the Power of Attorney, the allegation is against the FELDA’s subsidiary FIC giving the Power of Attorney without informing FELDA its parent company.

In short in the Court’s view a proper and complete reading of the articles do not disclose any cause of action of defamation against the Plaintiffs in the Statement of Claim filed by the Plaintiff.

Further any cause of action is extinguished by a consent judgement entered between the Plaintiffs and FELDA and its former Chairman Tan Sri Sharir Samad who is believed to be the person behind exposing this land deal between FELDA and the Plaintiffs.

In pursuance of the consent judgment the said Tan Sri Sharir Samad in reading a statement in Court exonerated both FELDA and the Plaintiffs of any wrongdoings in the sale of the land by FELDA to the Plaintiffs.

In the case of Gabungan Strategik Sdn Bhd V Geonomics (M) Sdn Bhd [2021] AMEJ 1808 the learned Judge relied on the case Clark V Urquhart [1930] A.C. 28 which decided that “ damage is an essential part of the cause of action and if already satisfied by one of the alleged tortfeasors the cause of action is destroyed”

The case law is clear that the summary procedure in Order 18 Rule 19 of the Rules to strike out a claim can be applied in plain and obvious case. In the Court’s view this is one such plain and obvious case.

Further Order 34(1) of the Rules authorises the Court on its own motion to give such orders and directions:

Orders and directions for just, expeditious and economical disposal of proceedings (O. 34 r. 1)

Notwithstanding anything in these Rules, the Court may, at any time after the commencement of proceedings, of its own motion, direct any party or parties to the proceedings to appear before the Court, in order that the Court may make such order or give such direction as it thinks fit so that-

all matters which must or can be dealt with on interlocutory applications and have not already been dealt with may so far as possible be dealt with; and

such directions may be given as to the future course of the action as appear best adapted to secure the just, expeditious and economical disposal thereof.

In the upshot the Court struck out the Plaintiffs’ claim against the Defendants. Dated: 2.10.2025 sgd DATO’ HAJI AKHTAR BIN TAHIR Judge High Court of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur PARTIES For the Plaintiff: Nama Peguamcara: Kok Wuen Lin / Simon Murali Tetuan Simon Murali & Co. Suite 18.3, Tingkat 18 Plaza MWE, No. 8, Lebuh Farquhar 10200 Georgetown Pulau Pinang. For the Defendant: Nama Peguamcara: Rueben Mathiavaranam / Sumita Balasubramaniam Tetuan Zaid Ibrahim Suflan T H Liew & Partners Unit 2.01, Level 2 Plaza Damansara Block A Bukit Damansara 50490 Kuala Lumpur.